Deal or no deal on the U.S. budget? (12 letters)

More attention must be paid to the economic impact the outcome of the “fiscal cliff” will inevitably have on the middle class in Colorado.

Your article states, “Because of a broad middle-class tax base here, the overall tax impact will be less in Colorado than in richer states such as New York and New Jersey.” This seriously undermines the impact that raising taxes will have on the majority of the people in Colorado.

Estimates show that the average family will have to pay $1,600 more in taxes if these tax cuts are allowed fall by the wayside. Middle-class Colorado families cannot be ignored! Tax hikes for the middle class could not come at a worse time, with an economy still in recovery and many Coloradans still out of work.

Congressional representatives must take a stand for their predominantly middle-class constituency and vote to extend the middle-class tax cuts.

Caitlin L. Murray, Pueblo

This letter was published in the Dec. 9 edition.

Your article laments the possible loss of federal dollars coming to our state but fails to mention that 40 cents of every one of those dollars is borrowed money adding a troubling amount to our present debt and deficit problems. It also disregards the fact that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are cutting existing or future spending by one dime. Their proposals differ only in the amount of increased federal spending.

The current path of fiscal insanity is unsustainable and the task at hand should be to reduce federal spending, and the question is: if not now, when?

Carl Miller, Leadville

This letter was published in the Dec. 9 edition.

While your article does a good job explaining how the “fiscal cliff” could hurt Coloradans if a deal isn’t reached by year’s end, it fails to mention small businesses — an important group that would suffer greatly if we fall off the so-called cliff.

Small Business Majority’s recent opinion polling found a majority of small employers think raising taxes on the wealthiest 2 percent — a provision the debate around the cliff is hinging upon — is the right thing to do given our current budget crisis.

Small business owners are much more concerned about improving economic conditions for the middle class, a category virtually all their customers fall into and which 97 percent of them are part of, too.

Small businesses employ more than half of America’s workforce and are our principal job creators. Their opinions on this issue should be carefully considered and taken into account as lawmakers seek a solution.

Tim Gaudette, Denver

The writer is an outreach manager for Small Business Majority.

This letter was published in the Dec. 9 edition.

Two hundred and twenty-five years ago, representatives of the various states of America gathered to save a foundering nation. Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Franklin and others differed greatly on every topic that arose: economics, commerce, sovereignty, federalism, military, citizens’ rights. Each lost battles on issues they considered critical. Yet they stayed the course, compromised constantly, and produced the U.S. Constitution, which, imperfect as it was, proved to be the basis for a more perfect union. Each believed the goal they pursued more important than any position they stood for individually.

I ask our current representatives to mimic our Founding Fathers and work together for the greater good. And I ask my fellow citizens to see such compromise as admirable. We must stop asking our representatives to wage an unwinnable war of uncompromising values, each of which only half of our country supports.

We are a purple nation in need of purple solutions.

Chip Hartney, Aurora

This letter was published in the Dec. 9 edition.

Reading the current budget proposals put forth by our “leaders” has led me to conclude that neither party has the future of our country at heart. Both plans purport to merely decrease the deficit over multiple decades. These deficit negotiations are merely a distraction from our growing debt. The current debt is the 16 trillion-pound elephant in the room which the media glosses over in favor of the bipartisan posturing.

The proposal from the current administration grants presidential power to raise the debt limit. This unprecedented power grab is hauntingly similar to recent edicts of Egypt’s Mohammed Morsi, mockingly named the “Pharaoh of Egypt.”

The only compromise which would demonstrate leadership must begin with the tax increases proposed by the Democrats and the spending cuts proposed by the Republicans. Beyond that, our elected leaders are obligated to work out a plan which will eliminate the deficit and address the debt. Out-of-control debt is both economically and morally irresponsible, eminently threatening our existence.

Balance the budget now, not in 20 years.

Wes Underwood, Westminster

This letter was published in the Dec. 9 edition.

My husband and I consider ourselves as lower middle class. However, we both agree that we need to go over the fiscal cliff to solve the fiscal mess that we as United States citizens and the U.S. government has created. We think we need to shoulder the tax hikes and mandatory spending cuts in order try to get back in the black. We are a pretty resilient society — what used to be the old normal will be the next new normal.

Linda L. Philbrick, Parker

This letter was published in the Dec. 9 edition.

The latest budget proposal from the president reveals him once again as a problem maker, not a problem solver. He proposes to double down on his war on the nation’s successful, pretending we are all fools in evaluating his “balanced” proposal to solve the nation’s chronic $1 trillion annual budget deficit. But he’s right — we are fools. We bought his lies that the rich don’t pay their fair share, when by any measure they pay more than their fair share. We bought his lies that he would propose a balanced approach between spending cuts and tax increases. We bought his lies that he cares about the economy and the jobs — or lack thereof — that his plan produces. We bought his lies that he cares about balancing the budget and avoiding turning America into Greece. We bought his lie about how raising the debt ceiling was “immoral.”

We are a nation of fools and we deserve what we get. I ask Congress to do nothing and let the sequestration law come into effect and let the Bush tax cuts expire. These steps are a much better alternative to the proposals of this president; they will be a down payment towards fiscal sanity and better for the nation in the long term.

Caroline Baum argued that in order to balance the budget, we need to reform entitlements. She could not be more correct; Social Security has become outdated. It is a major drain on the federal revenue now, and the baby boomers have only begun to retire. In the near future, Social Security will be unable to keep up with the retirees and still provide any guarantees to the younger working generation.

As suggested by Baum, the retirement age should be gradually raised to ensure that Social Security continues to exist. When it was established, the life expectancy was just above 60 and 65 seemed to be a reasonable retirement age. But as of 2008, the census reports that life expectancy is just under 80. The retirement age needs to be indexed according to changes in life expectancy, thus allowing Social security to be available for today’s young workers when they retire.

Stephanie Truskowski, Greenwood Village

This letter was published online only.

As a veteran public school teacher who served the children of low- and middle-income families for 25 years, I have paid and continue to pay my fair share. When considering all taxes — state and national income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, auto taxes, etc. — an estimated $10,000 or 30 percent of my retirement income goes to taxes.

If Congress insists on protecting the top 2 percent by holding the middle-income tax cuts hostage, 114 million families will see, on average, a $2,200 increase in their tax bill and 35 million will lose the $1,000-per-child tax credit.

And what will happen to the highest earners if their taxes are raised by the proposed 3 percent on dollars earned over the first $250,000? I guess just that much less will trickle down to the Cayman Islands.

Jane Nyman, Denver

This letter was published online only.

Regarding the ramifications of going over “the cliff,” this is the wrong way to be looking at the problem. First, we need a good and serious analysis addressing uncontrolled debt. What will happen if we get to a debt of, say, $40 trillion? That could be very, very scary, especially for future generations. Next, we need to determine how we can live with a whole lot less. As a retired naval officer, I used to go through these drills every budget year. First, you try to convince the powers that be that the world will end if we don’t get what we ask for. Then, when you don’t get it, you do the really hard work of managing with what you have. Our states and local governments have been doing this for years (they can’t print money). Our federal government needs to get on board as well.

Steven R. Turner, Centennial

This letter was published online only.

Wouldn’t it be nice if our senators could show the same kind of bipartisan cooperation on avoiding the “fiscal cliff” as they do on drafting legislation to punish Palestine’s paltry victory at the United Nations? Sen. Lindsey Graham and colleagues’ push to introduce legislation to cut off U.S. assistance to the Palestinians, as well as shutter their Washington office, is almost risible in its puerile vindictiveness. While Americans postpone holiday purchases in fear of falling off the “fiscal cliff,” maybe our wise men in Washington would do well to cut off aid to Israel as well. The annual $3 billion that we pay in tax dollars to sustain their international lawlessness would offset Colorado’s “fiscal cliff” losses by some 40 years!

Elizabeth Ordonez, Golden

This letter was published online only.

Reality check for Barack Obama: “The buck stops here,” the sign on Harry Truman’s Oval Office desk says. The president of the United States is expected to provide leadership in all critical situations. President Obama’s leadership test is at hand. He must prevent the United States from plunging over the “fiscal cliff” by Dec. 31 and set the stage for creation of a long-term “grand bargain” in 2013. The bargain must bring the $1.1 trillion budget deficit under control and simultaneously jump-start the economy back to the innovation-based, high-value-creating economy similar to the late-1990s. This can only be accomplished by an intelligent combination of tax cuts and increases (including complete revision of the income tax system), spending cuts and increases, and regulation cuts and increases. Can Obama provide the leadership to accomplish this? Every patriotic, independent-thinking American hopes so. If he can’t, it will be proof that he learned little in the previous four years of on-the-job training and that the next four years will probably be the same.

Jim Leonard, Evergreen

This letter was published online only.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow DPLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

“My husband and I consider ourselves as lower middle class. However, we
both agree that we need to go over the fiscal cliff to solve the fiscal
mess that we as United States citizens and the U.S. government has
created. We think we need to shoulder the tax hikes and mandatory
spending cuts in order try to get back in the black. We are a pretty
resilient society — what used to be the old normal will be the next new
normal.”

—————-

After looking at graph/chart that the Denver Post printed that showed how much more in taxes I will be paying should we “go over that cliff”……that is a very…..scary…..scenario.

Perhaps multi-millionaires have a few tens of thousands of dollars laying around to pay their expected rise in taxes…….but most of us in the Middle Class do NOT have a spare few thousand just laying around…….nor could we “get by” with a sudden loss of $300 or so in income due to the higher taxes we will be paying.

HOWEVER……I am NOT so afraid of that……that I am that willing to “think only of myself……and not what may be better for the financial health of our country in the long, long, long term.”

The US can NOT go on racking up $1 Trillion Annual Deficits…..forever. The US can NOT keep racking up the National Debt to $17 Trillion, $20 Trillion, $25 Trillion, $30 Trillion, $40 Trillion and beyond…….as if no one should ever be concerned about actually PAYING THAT DEBT BACK to those we BORROWED IT FROM.

If it takes……going off that fiscal cliff……if that is what it will takes…..to get President Obama and Congress to SERIOUSLY ADDRESS that Fiscal NIGHTMARE we are IN and that we are leaving our CHILDREN and our GRANDCHILDREN with…….IF THAT IS WHAT IT TAKES……..maybe we should……drive right off it……and see just how hard we land.

Parable: It may be easier to re-build a demolished house……than to constantly trying to shore up a shack that has a leaking roof, bad plumbing, out-of-code wiring, and lead-based paint.

Anonymous

It’s
hard to believe we’re it’s deja vu all over again with the Republicans
holding the country (read: middle class, poor) hostage again just to get
tax cuts for their rich donors. This old song and dance, has gotten
the Republican so unabashed about “tax cuts for the rich” that they
don’t even insist on the calling the uber rich “job creators” anymore.
It’s going where no man has gone before – “yes, the very rich are the
good guys! Honest!”

I could at least “understand” if the Republicans
main agenda was cutting entitlements,

increasing Defense spending, eliminating regulations, cutting welfare, taking candy from babies – but to make this their primary agenda just is another reason the new age, Tea Party Republicans are losing elections. A majority of Americans are for raising taxes on the rich, and over half of Republicans agree. It’s just these super-donor Republicans who are pushing this agenda – and they will lose (again).

Anonymous

The true solution is to let us go off the fiscal cliff – which really is just a “curb.” This will end the Republican’s death grip on tax cuts for their rich donors. THEN let the Republicans – congressional majority! – try to vote in these same tax cuts next year and convince the voters they are really doing it for them! The tax cuts for the middle class, payroll taxes, and all the rest of the needed stuff will come automatically. Because after an election – “the people have spoken” – and they said they don’t agree with extreme Republican ideas like tax cuts for their donor “job creators” or kicking grampa down the street.

thor

TH, we are a representative republic. We don’t elect people and tell them “we have spoken.” That would make us a democracy, something our forefathers feared. Republicans hold the House, Democrats the Senate and presidency. Its a good thing for our country that one party doesn’t rule. Look how bad that turned out during most of the Bush administration and 1/2 of the Obama administration. We need fair negotiations that will work for the greater good. An increase of revenues and a slowing of spending would move us in the right direction. Both sides should work to make this happen.

Anonymous

Thanks for correcting me, thor. More like semantics? I guess that’s why you didn’t vote for any Republican candidates for Senate because you wanted a balanced congress?
No. I don’t want a balanced congress, I wasn a Democrat congress – you want a Republican congress. PLEASE don’t try to tell me your party is cooperative and are carrying their majority of the House just to balance out the Senate. So why do EVERY Republican vote for EVERY Republican agenda – blindly? You seldom if ever these days find a Repubican who will “vote with the other side.” Look at the bill in the Senate simply to endorse a UN policy of rights for people with disabilities – all the nay votes were Republican and covered most of the Republican senators.
I would wholly agree with you if YOUR party were a party of “c-c-c-c-c-compromise” (the word they can’t even say), or the party of Republicans from the 18’s and 90’s, who recognized the concept of cooperation. Now your party is the party of stubborn, uncompromising, “our way or the highway,” blackmail (“let the debt ceiling lapse or any other “cliff” so we get our way”), fear, loathing, lies and hatefulness of Obama. When you want to elect representatives that truly represent the regular conservatives (e.g., over half the Republican voters do not want tax cuts for the rich) – then we can talk and you can lecture.

thor

Wow. I bet you believe everything you just wrote. Too bad you just offered opinion, but lack, as always, in substance. I especially like the parts where you speak for me. Do you want to try again and give me something with substance that i can respond to, or do you stand by what you wrote. I will respond to one thing, the UN policy of rights for people with disabilities. Why would we want to endorse anything coming from the UN. We are a sovereign nation and I hope we stay that way.

Anonymous

The UN treaty on people with disabilities was based on our own ADA.
Bob Dole, hardly a liberal, was in favor of it, and came out of retirement to plead with Republicans to pass it..
But, go ahead and dismiss anything the UN does.
That’s why the Tea Partiers shot it down: If it comes out of the UN, it must be bad.
After all, look at all those B-cycle red bicycles Denver is using to indoctrinate people with.
Regarding toohip offering opinion, gee, I thought that’s what most people commenting here did. It’s what I do. It’s even what you do.

thor

I give you more credit for reasonable debate, though sometimes you can make similar remarks instead of thoughtful comments. Your opening comment is an example of a debating point worth considering and responding to. I am only vaguely aware of the treaty, but I do not like most of the treaties proposed by the UN because they do not favor our country and are designed to be that way by nations who do not like us. The Law of the Sea Treaty is an example of a treaty that would be bad for us. Why should wealth be transferred from our country to other countries?

Anonymous

Barry, please explain to us how the wealthy have suffered under Obama’s purported “War on the Nation’s Successful”. Hurt egos & feelings?

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.